Abstract:Background The CASTLE-AF trial demonstrated that patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who underwent catheter ablation (CA) showed improved patient outcomes. These outcomes included a reduction in all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations along with an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction, when compared to those receiving medical therapy alone. However, there is no data regarding development of novel HFrEF and the need for implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) in patients with AF who underwent CA vs. those on antiarrhythmic therapy (AAD). Purpose This study aims to assess if there is a difference in the development of HFrEF and the need for ICD intervention amongst AF patients who underwent CA vs. those on AAD. We hypothesize that patients with AF who underwent CA will have a decrease in the development of HFrEF and mitigation in the need for ICD intervention compared to AAD alone. Methods A large retrospective, multicentre database was utilized to identify patients aged 18-80 with AF from 2017-2023. Two cohorts were subsequently established based on treatment received: 1) CA vs. 2) AAD (amiodarone, flecainide, dronedarone, dofetilide, propafenone, sotalol). Patients with crossover between the groups were excluded. Student's t-test was performed to compare baseline characteristics between cohorts. Relevant comorbidities, atrial fibrillation types, and cardiovascular medications were used for propensity matching. Kaplan Meier curves were calculated to compare outcomes at 5 years such as HFrEF development, ICD implantation, mortality, and hospitalizations. Results Patients that underwent CA (n=32,774) and AAD (n=345,882) were propensity matched yielding 32,670 patients per cohort. CA demonstrated a significantly decreased need for ICD intervention compared to AAD (1.69% vs. 3.28%; HR=0.559; 95% CI [0.503, 0.621], log rank p<0.0001). Secondary outcomes showed significant reduction in development of systolic heart failure (4.83% vs. 10.60%; HR=0.499; 95% CI [0.467, 0.533], log rank p<0.0001), overall hospitalizations (12.03% vs. 27.32%; HR=0.440; 95% CI [0.420, 0.461], log rank p<0.0001), and all-cause mortality (2.38% vs. 14.19%; HR=0.188; 95% CI [0.174, 0.203], log rank p<0.0001) with catheter ablation. Conclusions Patients that underwent CA had a significant reduction in development of systolic heart failure and mitigation in the need for ICD implantation when compared to those on AAD alone. Randomized clinical trials are needed to better understand this relationship and to further define which subpopulation of atrial fibrillation patients would derive the most benefit from CA.

Use of class IC antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with structural heart disease and implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Class 1C Antiarrhythmics for Premature Ventricular Complex Suppression in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

First-Line Catheter Ablation of Monomorphic Ventricular Tachycardia in Cardiomyopathy Concurrent With Defibrillator Implantation: The PAUSE-SCD Randomized Trial

Role of Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Frequent Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Shocks, Risk of Proarrhythmia, and New Drug Therapy

Risk of Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapies and Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients With Heart Failure With Improved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Catheter Ablation Versus Anti-arrhythmic Drugs for Treatment of Ventricular Arrhythmia

Association Between Atrial Fibrillation and Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy: Results from A Prospective Study

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death: a single center experience

Association of device detected atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmia with adverse events in patients with an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator

The effect of antiarrhythmic medications on the risk of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease

Incidence of systolic heart failure and need for implantable cardiac defibrillators in patients with atrial fibrillation who had catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic medical therapy

Association between implanted cardioverter-defibrillators and mortality for patients with left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 35

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator use in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy in North America and Europe

Outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients with a left ventricular assist device: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract 13047: Clinical Risk Stratification for Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (Icds)

Cardiac implantable electronic devices in adults with tetralogy of Fallot

Abstract 12506: Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Patients With Ischemic and Non Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: A Meta-Analysis of 15 Randomized Controlled Trial

Clinical application of implantable cardioverter defibillators and follow-up of patients received cardioverter defibrillators implantation

Real‐world data of patients affected by advanced heart failure treated with implantable cardioverter defibrillator and left ventricular assist device: Results of a multicenter observational study

Prognosis in patients with coronary heart disease and ventricular arrhythmias received implantable cardioverter defibrillators

New York Heart Association functional class and implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator in non‐ischaemic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Extended follow‐up of the DANISH trial